ANIL RAINA HUF vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/15878/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01086365202528 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously allowed writ petitions on the same issue in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case and Jasjit Singh's case, quashing similar notices and orders and granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure. In the present case, the Court observed that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the petitioner's appeal in accordance with the aforementioned judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench. The Court did not decide the merits of the case but directed the appellate authority to consider the issue in light of the precedents. All pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anil Raina HUF, challenged a notice dated March 31, 2023, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an assessment order dated March 23, 2024, under Section 147, and a demand notice dated March 23, 2024, under Section 156, all pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner argued that the issuance of these notices was invalid based on a CBDT circular dated March 29, 2022, which stipulated that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) had exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The petitioner also stated that an appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority. The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order dated 23.03.2024 under Section 147, and the demand notice dated 23.03.2024 under Section 156, for AY 2019-2020, are invalid in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the NFAC? (Question of law). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned notices and orders were liable to be quashed as they were issued contrary to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which mandates that only the NFAC has the exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner relied on judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023). Revenue's Contentions: The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-15878-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 211 CWP-15878-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-28.05.2025 Anil Raina HUF ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Faridabad & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’); assessment order dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, passed in CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected matter, decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509- 2023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same is pending before the Appellate Authority. 3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not Sonia Arora 2025.05.31 16:28 I agree to specified portions of this document

CWP-15878-2025 2 disputed the same. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; assessment order dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 147 of the Act, 1961; demand notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 156 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020, in view of the circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 of the CBDT, wherein, it has been specifically enumerated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. 6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra) and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), allowed the writ petitions on the same issue, as raised in the present writ petition, by granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. 7. Since in the present case, the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner, in terms of the judgments mentioned above. 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (LISA GILL)

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 27.05.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Sonia Arora 2025.05.31 16:28 I agree to specified portions of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →